8. And in every case4 if their betrothal or divorce was in doubt, the co¬ wives must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage. How can the betrothal be in doubt? If when he threw to her the betrothal-gift it was in doubt whether it lay nearer to him or nearer to her, such is a case where the betrothal was in doubt. How can the divorce be in doubt? If a man wrote out [the bill of divorce] in his own handwriting but there were no witnesses, or if there were witnesses but no date was given, or if there was a date given but only one witness was present, such is a case where the divorce was in doubt.
9. If three brothers were married to three women not near of kin and one of the brothers died and the second brother only bespoke the widow for himself and then died, the [two] widows must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage [with the third brother], for it is written, [If brethren dwell together ] and one of them die...her husband's brother shall go in unto her 5 — thus she is bound only to one brother-in-law and is not 1 Cf. Yeb. 13’. 3 The surviving third sister. 3 Above, i1.
4 Of the fifteen enumerated above, il. s Deut. 2s4.
bound to two brothers-in-law. R. Simeon says: He may contract levirate marriage with which of them he will and submit to halitzah from the other. If two brothers were married to two sisters and one of the brothers died and afterward the wife of the other brother died, [the wife of the first brother] is forbidden to him for all time since she was forbidden to him during a certain time.
10. If two men had betrothed two women and when they entered into the bride-chamber the two women were exchanged, then both are culpable by virtue of the law of thy neighbour’s wife;1 and, if they were brothers, by virtue of the law of thy brother’s wife;2 and, if they were sisters, by virtue of the law of a woman and her sister;3 and, if they were both menstruants, by virtue of the law of the menstruant.4 They must be kept apart for three months lest they be with child. If they were minors and not like to bear children, they may forthwith be restored [to their proper husbands]. If they were priests’ daughters they are rendered ineligible to eat of Heave-offering.5 4. 1. If a man submitted to halitzah from his deceased brother’s wife and she was then found with child and gave birth, if the child was like to live,6 [the halitzah is deemed void]: each is permitted to marry the other’s kindred;7 and he has not rendered her ineligible for marriage with a priest. But if the child was not like to live, neither is permitted to marry the other’s kindred, and he has rendered her ineligible for marriage with a priest.
2. If a man consummated marriage with his deceased brother’s wife and she was found [already] with child and gave birth, if the child was like to live, he must put her away and they must offer a [Sin-]offering.8 But if the child was not like to live he may continue the marriage If it is in doubt whether what is born is a nine-months’ child of the former [husband] or a seven-months’ child of the latter [husband], he must put her away; the child is deemed legitimate; but they must offer a Suspensive Guilt- offering.9 3. If,0awomanawaitingleviratemarriagen inherited property, the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree that she may sell it or give it away and the act will be valid. If she died what should be done with her Ketubah 12 and property that comes in and goes out with her?' 3 The School of Shammai say: The heirs of her [deceased] husband14 share with the heirs of her father. IS And the School of Hillel say: Her [$on barzel ]16 property falls [equally] to them [both]: the Ketubah falls to the [deceased] husband’s heirs, and the property that comes in and goes out with her falls to her father’s heirs.
4. But if17 the brother-in-law had consummated marriage with her, she counts as his wife in all respects save that her Ketubah is a charge on her first husband’s goods.
* On the ground of Lev. 2211, **. 6 Not a premature birth.
7 See below, par. 7. * Because of a forbidden connexion in error. Cf. Ker. tx~*.
* As prescribed in Lev. S"*. Cf. Ker. i*. >« Ket. 8‘.
11 Tied to the aurviving brother by the levirate bond, but not yet knowing whether he will take her. or submit to halitzah, n See App. 1. 16.
13 Melog property. See App. I. 24. Cf. Yeb. 71. 14 On the ground of B.B. 81.
,s According to Gem. 39a the case here is one where the brother-in-law had ‘bespoken her’ (see p. 219, n. 4), and it is in doubt whether he can be accounted her husband (and heir). See App. I. 41. 17 Ket. 8’.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM 5. The duty of levirate marriage falls on the eldest [surviving] brother. If he was not willing it passes in turn to each of the other brothers, and if they were not willing they come again to the eldest and say to him, ‘The duty falls on thee: submit to halitzah or contract levirate marriage’.
6. If he would hold his decision in suspense until a brother that was not of age should have come of age, or until an elder brother should have returned from beyond the sea, or until a brother that was a deaf-mute or an imbecile should recover, they do not listen to him but say, ‘The duty falls on thee: submit to halitzah or contract levirate marriage’.
7. If a man submitted to halitzah from his deceased brother’s wife he still counts as one of the brothers in what concerns inheritance;1 but if the father was living the property falls to him.2 If he consummated marriage with his deceased brother’s wife he thereby acquires title to the nroperty of his brother. R. Judah says: In either case if the lather was living the property' falls to him. If a man submitted to halitzah from his deceased brother’s wife neither may marry the kindred of the other: [namely,] he may not marry her mother, her mother’s mother, or her father’s mother, her daughter, her daughter’s daughter or her son’s daughter or her sister (such time as the deceased brother’s wife is living; but his brothers may marry her); and she may not marry his father, his father’s father or his mother’s father, his son, or his son’s son or his brother or his brother’s son. A man may marry one that is near of kin to the co-wife of his deceased brother’s wife at whose hands he has submitted to halitzah, but not the co-wife of one that is near of kin to his deceased brother’s wife at whose hands he has submitted to halitzah.
8. If a man submitted to halitzah from his deceased brother’s wife and his brother married her sister and then died, the sister must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage [with the first brother]; but if a man divorced his wife and his brother married her sister and then died, the sister is exempt both from halitzah and from levirate marriage.
9. If a woman awaited levirate marriage with a man whose [younger] brother betrothed her sister, the Sages said in the name of R. Judah b. Bathyra: They must say [to the younger brother], ‘Wait until thine elder brother shall decide’.3 If the elder brother submitted to halitzah or con¬ summated the marriage the younger brother may consummate the marriage with his [betrothed] wife. And if the sister-in-law died, the younger brother may consummate the marriage with his [betrothed] wife. But if the elder brother died, he must put away his [betrothed] wife by a bill of divorce and submit to halitzah from his brother’s wife.
10. Three months [of her widowhood] must pass by before the wife of the deceased brother may perform halitzah or contract levirate marriage. So, too, other widows may not [again] be betrothed or married before three months have passed, whether they are virgins or not virgins, whether they are divorced or widows, whether they were married or [only] be¬ trothed. R. Judah says: They that had been married may forthwith be betrothed, and they that had been [only] betrothed may forthwith be married, excepting betrothed women in Judea, since [there] the bride¬ groom is less shamefast4 before her. R. Jose says: All women may be 1 From his deceased brother. 1 See B.B. 8*.
3 Since the levirate tie applies to every brother, and in the event of the elder brother’s failure to contract levirate marriage or to release her by halitzah the younger brother will be bound to two sisters. * Cf. Ket. i5.
betrothed [again forthwith] excepting the widow, because of her [pre¬ scribed] time of mourning.1 11. If four brothers married four women and then died, and the eldest [of the brothers that remained] was minded to contract levirate marriage with all the widows, it is his right. If a man was married to two women and died, consummation or halitzah with the one wife exempts the co-wife. If one of them was eligible [for marriage with a priest] and the other ineligible, if the brother-in-law submitted to halitzah it must be from her that was ineligible; and if he contracted levirate marriage it must be with her that was eligible.
12. If a man re-married his divorced wife,1 or married one at whose hands he had submitted to halitzah or one that was near of kin to her, he must put her away, and any child that is born is a bastard. So R. Akiba. But the Sages say: The child is not a bastard. But they agree that if a man married one that was near of kin to his divorced wife, any chiid [that is born] is a bastard.
13. Who is accounted a bastard?3 [The offspring from] any [union of] near of kin which is forbidden [in the Law]. So R. Akiba. Simeon of Teman says: [The offspring of any union] for which the partakers are liable to Extirpation4 at the hands of heaven. And the Halakah 5 is accord¬ ing to his words. R. Joshua says: [The offspring of any union] for which the partakers are liable to death at the hands of the court.6 R. Simeon b. Azzai said: I found a family register in Jerusalem and in it was written, ‘Such-a-one is a bastard through [a transgression of the law of] thy neigh¬ bour’s wife’,7 confirming the words of R. Joshua. If a man’s wife died he is permitted to marry her sister. If he divorced her and she afterward died he is permitted to marry her sister. If she was married again to another man and afterward died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If a man’s deceased brother’s wife died, he is permitted to marry her sister. If he submitted to halitzah from her and she afterward died, he is permitted to marry her sister.® 5. 1. Rabban Gamaliel said: No bill of divorce has validity after another bill of divorce,6 and no statement [of betrothal] after another statement [of betrothal],10 and no act of consummation after another act of consumma¬ tion, and no act of halitzah after another act of halitzah.11 But the Sages say: A bill of divorce has validity after another bill of divorce, and a statement [of betrothal] after another statement [of betrothal]; but naught can validly follow consummation or halitzah 11 2. Thus if a man bespoke for himself his deceased brother’s wife and then gave her a bill of divorce, he must still submit to halitzah. If he E Thirty days. 1 After she had married again. See Deut. 24*.
* Some texts add: ‘ If she afterward married another and then died, he is permitted to marry her sister. And in every case he is forbidden to marry her near of kin.'
* i.e. if a man left two widows and the levir gave a bill of divorce to the first widow and afterwards another to the second, the second has no power, and the near of kin of the second are not forbidden to him.
10 If he bespoke one of them and then the second, the second needs no bill of divorce to release her; so, too, if two brothers bespoke the same widow one after the other, the word of the second brother has no binding force.
1 1 The second does not render the widow ineligible for marriage into the priestly stock. 11 The one act is the clinching of the levirate tie, the other is its final severance.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM bespoke her and then submitted to halitzah she still requires of him a bill of divorce.1 If he bespoke her and then consummated the marriage, such is her due.
3. If he gave her a bill of divorce and then bespoke her, she must receive of him a bill of divorce and must still perform halitzah. If he gave her a bill of divorce and then consummated the marriage, she must receive of him a bill of divorce and she must still perform halitzah. If he gave her a bill of divorce and then submitted to halitzah, naught can validly follow the halitzah. If he submitted to halitzah and then bespoke her, or gave her a bill of divorce and then consummated the marriage, or consummated the marriage and then bespoke her, or gave her a bill of divorce and then sub¬ mitted to halitzah, naught can validly follow the halitzah, and it is all one whether there was one deceased brother’s wife to one brother-in-law, or two deceased brothers’ wives to one brother-in-law.
4. Thus if a man bespoke both deceased brothers’ wives he must give two bills of divorce and submit to halitzah [from one of them]. If he be¬ spoke one and gave a bill of divorce to the other, he must give the one a bill of divorce and submit to halitzah from the other. If he bespoke the one and consummated marriage with the other, he must give two bills of divorce and submit to halitzah [from one of them]. If he bespoke the one and submitted to halitzah from the other, the first must be given a bill of divorce. If he gave a bill of divorce to each, he must submit to halitzah from one. If he gave a bill of divorce to one and bespoke the other, he must give a bill of divorce to one and submit to halitzah from one. If he gave a bill of divorce to one and submitted to halitzah from the other, then after halitzah naught can validly follow.
5. If he submitted to halitzah from both or submitted to halitzah from one and bespoke the other, or gave a bill of divorce to one and consum¬ mated marriage with the other, or consummated marriage with both, or consummated marriage with one and bespoke the other, or gave a bill of divorce to one and submitted to halitzah from the other, naught can validly follow the halitzah, whether there was one brother-in-law to two deceased brothers’ wives, or two brothers-in-law to one deceased brother’s wife.
6. If he submitted to halitzah from her and then bespoke her, or gave her a bill of divorce or consummated marriage with her, or consummated marriage and then bespoke her or gave her a bill of divorce or submitted to halitzah from her, then naught can validly follow halitzah, whether this came in the beginning or in the middle or at the end. If the consumma¬ tion came in the beginning, naught can validly follow; but if it came in the middle or at the end, somewhat else can validly follow.2 R. Nehemiah says: It is the same with consummation as with halitzah: whether in the begin¬ ning or in the middle or at the end, naught can validly follow.
6. 1. If a man had connexion with his deceased brother’s wife, whether in error or wantonness, whether under constraint or willingly, or even if he acted in error and she in wantonness, or he in wantonness and she in error, or he under constraint and she not under constraint, or she under con¬ straint and he not under constraint, whether the act was partial or com¬ plete — he has thereby acquired her to wife; and there is no distinction respecting the manner of connexion.
1 To annul the ^bespeaking’, which has the force of betrothal (p. 219, n. 4).
2 If consummation was not valid the levirate tie is still neither severed nor complete.
2. So, too, if a man had connexion with one from among the forbidden degrees spoken of in the Law, or from among them that are ineligible, (to wit,1 a widow [who is forbidden in marriage] to a High Priest, a divorced woman or one that had performed halitzah to a common priest, a woman that is a bastard or a Nethinah to an Israelite, and a daughter of an Israelite to a bastard or a Nothin), he has thereby rendered her ineligible;2 and there is no distinction respecting the manner of connexion.
3. If a widow was betrothed to a High Priest, or a divorced woman or one that had performed halitzah to a common priest, they3 may not eat of Heave-offering.4 R. Eliezer and R. Simeon declare them eligible. If they became widows or were divorced after wedlock, they are ineligible, but if after betrothal [only], they remain eligible.
4. A High Priest may not marry a widow5 whether she had become a widow after betrothal or after wedlock; and he may not marry one that is past her girlhood.6 But R. Eliezer and R. Simeon declare one that is past her girlhood eligible. He may not marry one that is not virgo intacta. If he had betrothed a widow and was afterward appointed High Priest, he may consummate the union. It once happened that Joshua b. Gamla betrothed Martha the daughter of Boethus, and he consummated the union after that the king appointed him High Priest. If a woman awaited levirate marriage with a common priest and he was appointed High Priest, although he had bespoken her he may not consummate the union. If the brother of the High Priest died, the High Priest must submit to halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage.7 5. A common priest may not marry a sterile woman unless he already had a wife or children. R. Judah says: Although he already had a wife or children he may not marry a sterile woman, for such is the harlot spoken of in the Law.8 But the Sages say: The harlot refers only to a female proselyte, or to a freed bondwoman, or to one that suffered connexion of the nature of fornication.
6. No man may abstain from keeping the law Be fruitful and multiply,9 unless he already has children: according to the School of Shammai, two sons; according to the School of Hillel, a son and a daughter, for it is written, Male and female created he them.10 If he married a woman and lived with her ten years and she bare no child, it is not permitted him to abstain. If he divorced her she may be married to another and the second husband may live with her for ten years. If she had a miscarriage the space [of ten years] is reckoned from the time of the miscarriage. The duty to be fruitful and multiply falls on the man but not on the woman. R. Johanan b. Baroka says: Of them both it is written, And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply."
7. 1. If a widow [was married] to a High Priest, or if a divorced woman or one that had performed halitzah [was married] to a common priest,12 and she brought him in [as her dowry] melogli slaves and fon barzel 14 slaves, the melog slaves may not eat of Heave-offering,15 but the?on barzel slaves may 1 See above, a4. * To marry a priest, or to eat of Heave -offering.
J Being of priestly stock.
♦ In their father’s house, since they had married unlawfully. 5 Lev. 21“.
* Heb. bogereth, ripe for childbearing (see Nidd. 5**.), i.e. over twelve years and si* The chapter deals with cases arising out of Lev. 22l*'w. See also below, 9.
228 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM eat thereof. Melog slaves are such that, if they die, the wife suffers the loss, and if their value increases the wife enjoys the increase; though the husband is responsible for their maintenance they may not eat of Heave-offering. Son barzel slaves are such that, if they die, the loss is suffered by the husband, and if their value increases the husband enjoys the increase; since his obligation is to restore them in full they may eat of Heave-offering.
2. If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and [as her dowry] she brought him in slaves, be they melog or jon barzel property, they may eat of Heave-offering; but if a priest’s daughter was married to an Israelite and brought him in either melog slaves or son barzel slaves, they may not eat of Heave-offering.'
3. If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest and he died leaving her with child, her slaves may not eat of Heave-offering by virtue of the portion that falls to the unborn child; for the unborn child can deprive2 [a woman] of the right to eat [of Heave-offering] but it cannot bestow3 [on her] the right. So R. Jose. The Sages said to him: After thou hast affirmed this to us of the daughter of an Israelite [married] to a priest, [wouldest thou also affirm] of the daughter of a priest [married] to a priest who died [childless] and left her with child, that her slaves may not eat of Heave-offering by virtue of the portion that falls to the unborn child?4 4. An unborn child, a levir, betrothal, a deaf-mute, or a boy nine years old and a day can deprive5 [a woman] of the right to eat [of Heave-offering], but they cannot bestow [on her] the right, even if it is in doubt whether he is nine years old and a day or not,6 or whether he has produced two hairs or not.7 If a house fell upon a man and [his wife who was] his brother’s daughter, and it is not known which of them died first, her co¬ wife must perform halitzah and may not contract levirate marriage.
5. The violator8 and the seducer9 and he that is an imbecile cannot deprive [the woman with whom they have connexion] of the right to eat [of Heave-offering]10 nor can they bestow [on her] the right;" but if they are such that are not fit to enter [into the congregation of] Israel,12 they can deprive [the woman] of the right to eat.13 Thus if an Israelite had connexion with the daughter of a priest she may [still] eat of Heave-offering; if she was got with child she may not eat of Heave-offering; if the unborn child in her bowels was cut out she may eat. If a priest had connexion with the daughter of an Israelite, she may not eat of Heave-offering; if she was got with child she may not eat; if she gave birth she may eat. [Thus] the power of the child is greater than that of the father. A slave disqualifies [a woman from eating of Heave-offering] by virtue of congress but not by ' They count during the marriage as his property. See Lev. 22" ■ ”, 2 If a priest’s daughter was with child by an Israelite who died childless, she does not return to her father’s house, there to eat of Heave-otTermg.
> If an Israelite’s daughter was with child by a priest who died childless, the unborn child does not empower her to eat of Heave-offering; and the restriction applies equally to her slaves.
4 A reductio ad absurdum, if the reason was that an unborn child grants no rights. R. Jose’s reason, however, was that what is within the body of one of non-priestly stock counts as non-priestly stock in all respects.
5 The priest’s daughter is tied to the levir (a non-priest) and so cannot eat Heave- offering in her father’s house. By betrothal the man acquires her as his property. Marriage to a deaf-mute is reckoned valid. Intercourse with one nine years and a day old renders her ineligible to marry a priest. Cf. Nidd. 5*.
* But cf. Yeb. 10*. f Cf. Sanh. 81; Nidd. 6” * Deut. 22**.
9 Ex. 2214"1’. 10 If she is the daughter of a priest. 11 If they are priests.
virtue of offspring. Thus if the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, or a priest’s daughter to an Israelite, and she bore a son by him, and the son went and had connexion with a bondwoman, and she bore a son by him, such a child is a bondman; and if his father’s mother was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest she may not eat of Heave¬ offering; but if she was a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite she may eat of Heave-offering. A bastard may deprive [a woman] of the right to eat [of Heave-offering] and also bestow the right. Thus if the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, or a priest’s daughter to an Israelite, and she bore a daughter by him and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore a son by him, such a child is a bastard; and if his mother’s mother was the daughter of an Israelite married to a priest she may eat of Heave-offering, but if she was a priest’s daughter married to an Israelite she may not eat of Heave-offering.
6. There are times when a High Priest can deprive [a woman] of the right [to eat of Heave-offering]. Thus if a priest’s daughter was married to an Israelite and she bore a daughter by him, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore a son by him, such a child is lit to become a High Priest, to stand and minister at the Altar; he bestows on his mother1 the right to eat [of Heave-offering], but he deprives his mother's mother of the right; and she may say, ‘Let there not be the like of my grandson, the High Priest, who deprives me of the right to eat of Heave¬ offering’.
8. 1. The uncircumcised2 and all they that are unclean may not eat of Heave-offering; [but] their wives and their slaves may eat of Heave-offer¬ ing. He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off,3 they and their slaves may eat of Heave-offering but their wives may not eat; but if such a one did not thereafter have connexion with his wife,4 she may eat of Heave-offering.
2. Who is deemed wounded in the stones? He whose testicles are wounded or one only of them. And [who is he that] hath his privy member cut off? He whose member is cut. But if so much as a hair-thread of the crown remains he is eligible [to eat of Heave-offering]. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off is permitted to marry a female proselyte or a freed slave, only he may not enter into the assembly, for it is written, He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord.3 3. An Ammonite or a Moabite* is forbidden and forbidden for all time [to marry an Israelite], but their women are permitted forthwith. An Egyptian or an Edomite7 whether male or female is forbidden only for three generations. R. Simeon declares their women forthwith permitted. R. Simeon said: It is an inference from the less to the greater: if where the menfolk® are for all time forbidden their women are forthwith per¬ mitted, how much the more where the menfolk are forbidden for but three generations should their women be forthwith permitted! They answered: If this is Halakah 9 [which thou hast received] we receive it; but if it is but an inference [of thine own] a counter-inference may rebut it. He answered: 1 When his father is dead.
1 Gem. 64b: a priest suffered to remain so, because his two brothers died of the opention.
J Deut. 23*. 4 But she was married to him prior to his disability, s Deut. 231; i.e. may not marry an Israelite. * Deut. 23*. Cf. Yad. 4*.
* Deut. 237. * And male offspring. * App. I, it.
230 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM Not so, but I declare what is Halakah. Bastards1 and Nathins 2 are for¬ bidden and forbidden for all time, whether they are males or females.
4. R. Joshua said: I have heard a tradition that a eunuch submits to halitsah and his brothers submit to halitzah from his wife; also [I have heard a tradition] that a eunuch does not submit to halitzah nor do his brothers submit to halitzah. from his wife; and I cannot explain it. R. Akiba said: I will explain it. If he was a man-made eunuch he submits to halitzah and his brothers submit to halitzah from his wife, because there was a time when he was potent; but if he was a eunuch by nature he does not submit to halitzah nor do his brothers submit to halitzah from his wife, because there never was a time when he was potent. R. Eliezer says: Not so! but a eunuch by nature submits to halitzah and his brothers submit to halitzah from his wife, since he may be healed; but a man-made eunuch does not submit to halitzah nor do his brothers submit to halitzah from his wife, since he cannot be healed. R. Joshua b. Bathyra testified of Ben Megusath who lived in Jerusalem [and was] a man-made eunuch, that they contracted levirate marriage with his wife, confirming the words of R. Akiba.
5. A eunuch [by nature] does not submit to halitzah or contract levirate marriage; so, too, a woman that is sterile does not perform halitzah or contract levirate marriage. If a eunuch submitted to halitzah from his deceased brother’s wife, he does not disqualify her [for marriage with a priest]; but if he had connexion he disqualifies her, since such connexion is of the nature of fornication. So, too, if brothers submitted to halitzah from a woman that is sterile they do not disqualify her, since connexion with her is of the nature of fornication.
6. If a priest that was a eunuch by nature married the daughter of an Israelite, he gives her the right to eat of Heave-offering. R. Jose and R. Simeon say: If a priest that was of double sex married the daughter of an Israelite, he gives her the right to eat of Heave-offering. R. Judah says: If one of doubtful sex was found to be a male when the impediment was removed, he may not submit'to halitzah since he is accounted a eunuch [by nature]. One that is of double sex may marry [a wife], but none may marry him. R. Eliezer says: [Through connexion with] one that is of double sex the penalty of stoning is incurred as with a male.3 9. 1. Some women are permitted in marriage to their husbands and for¬ bidden to their brothers-in-law; some are permitted in marriage to their brothers-in-law and forbidden to their husbands; some are permitted to both, and some are forbidden to both. These [are the cases in which the women] are permitted in marriage to their husbands and forbidden to their brothers-in-law: a common priest who married a widow and has a brother that is a High Priest; a man of impaired priestly stock4 who married a woman that was eligible [for marriage with a priest] and has a brother of unimpaired priestly stock; an Israelite who married the daughter of an Israelite and has a bastard brother; a bastard who married a woman that is a bastard and has a brother who is an Israelite; these are the cases in which the women are permitted in marriage to their husbands and forbidden to their brothers-in-law.
2. These are the cases in which the women are permitted in marriage to 4 Lit. ‘profaned’; cf. Lev. 2i4- see Kidd. 4** *. Such are the offspring of a union that transgresses the laws governing the marriage of the priestly stock. Lev. zv- *• l*> 14.